3626 réponses à ce sujet

[SnakeCode]

 Nobody's suggesting Bioware "educate" us on anything. Some people would just prefer that their comrades charge into battle in some sick armor as opposed to their underwear, a skintight onesie and/or heels.

 

I was responding to a specific question.

[Mcfly616]

I was responding to a specific question.

 I'm aware of that. I was simply throwing my two cents in on the topic of education/entertainment, not arguing a point.

[von uber]

To be honest I have never really seriously come across the concept of men being the disposable sex. If anything men have always occupied positions of power and authority and still do.
It strikes me as a big case of whataboutery, which is never a good basis to start from.


But then I'm in the UK, so maybe things are perceived differently here.

[Heimdall]

To be honest I have never really seriously come across the concept of men being the disposable sex. If anything men have always occupied positions of power and authority and still do.
It strikes me as a big case of whataboutery, which is never a good basis to start from.


But then I'm in the UK, so maybe things are perceived differently here.

Historically, most positions of authority and power have been filled by men, but relatively few men actually ever hold positions of authority or power. This issue isn't about those few men.

More generally, it can be seen as the flipside of the sexist attitude that women must be protected, in that men are expected to die rather than allow harm to come to women.

[von uber]

Yes, but even that is empowering as it is a positive stereotype - not one that diminishes a man.

[SnakeCode]

Yes, but even that is empowering as it is a positive stereotype - not one that diminishes a man.

 

A huge comfort to those that actually have died as a result of these attitudes i'm sure.

[Toasted Llama]

To be honest I have never really seriously come across the concept of men being the disposable sex. If anything RICH/WEALTHY/NOBLE men have always occupied positions of power and authority and still do.
It strikes me as a big case of whataboutery, which is never a good basis to start from.


But then I'm in the UK, so maybe things are perceived differently here.

 

Fixed that for you.

 

Humanity is more divided by wealth rather than gender. And the rich, wealthy men usually don't give 2 shits about other men.

 

 

Also

 

Yes, but even that is empowering as it is a positive stereotype - not one that diminishes a man.

 

I don't see how being told you can die/you're disposable, because a woman's life is more valuable than yours because they can raise/birth children is in any way positive.

[von uber]

You have to take it in the context of when this attitude was prevalent though; where women did not enjoy the equalities they do now and thus it was seem as a man's duty to do that - it is what being a man was about and therefore not negative.

Obviously nowadays it can be seen as an anachronism - but put it this way, if it was a choice between me and my 14week old daughter's mother - it would be me, as right now she is better placed to look after her.

[Heimdall]

Yes, but even that is empowering as it is a positive stereotype - not one that diminishes a man.

The issue isn't that men CAN die defending women but that the attitude is that they SHOULD. It isn't an option, it's an imperative. Men that fail to sacrifice themselves and allow women to be harmed are emasculated, treated as cowards and failures.

So I ask, is it really empowering if you're penalized for not doing it?

[Panda]

A question came to me right this second so i thought I'd ask it here. How many people view Mass Effect as just as form a entertainment, recreation? As oppose to something educational? You see I'm asking because if it's just entertainment, why put any bars on it? Why not let it be what they want it to be so that they (BioWare) can do their best to entertain us. If it's educational, or thought provoking material what have you gained from it that you couldn't have gotten from attending a science lecture, or a Audio Book?

 

I view it as entertainment. Some things in it take away from my entertainment like listening Miranda's serious story about her sister while her ass covers the screen. Or immersion-breaking things like Jack and others exposing skin on toxic/radiation places or Shepard being only one in the party that actually is armored from head to toe when others look like they are there for office work.

[Toasted Llama]

You have to take it in the context of when this attitude was prevalent though; where women did not enjoy the equalities they do now and thus it was seem as a man's duty to do that - it is what being a man was about and therefore not negative.

Obviously nowadays it can be seen as an anachronism - but put it this way, if it was a choice between me and my 14week old daughter's mother - it would be me, as right now she is better placed to look after her.

Right, that just looks like webdings to me now, I'm afraid I don't quite follow. So if you're responding to me, feel free to clarify/expand.

 

If you're not responding to me, ignore this comment.

[The Twilight God]

OP hasn't mentioned that they objectify women.

I didn't say he did. My question remains. How are they going to objectify women without dressing them in skin tight body suits, ample cleavage and have them wearing stilettos? Having practical armor makes it pretty hard to keep them in the eye candy zone.

[AresKeith]

I didn't say he did. My question remains. How are they going to objectify women without dressing them in skin tight body suits, ample cleavage and have them wearing stilettos? Having practical armor makes it pretty hard to keep them in the eye candy zone.

 

They can be eye candy in hub areas where it makes sense

[The Twilight God]

Read my post. First off it is not only to do with women. This applies to males as well.
 
Second, why the hell are soldiers running into combat in high heels, spandex, nude (with a leather strap)? It makes no sense and is impractical. That is not what you wear in warzone. On top of that, why do they also insist on wearing breathing masks over helmets in space (eyes are exposed, would that not kill you?), and not to mention Jack has her body skin exposed too. It's impractical.

It's so that young boys can have some eye candy. What's the value of a "female solider" (LOL!) other than something pretty to look at while the men get things done? If these females aren't wearing spandex body suits or half naked how else is Bioware going to objectify them? You're not giving any alternative means of objectification.

[Panda]

I didn't say he did. My question remains. How are they going to objectify women without dressing them in skin tight body suits, ample cleavage and have them wearing stilettos? Having practical armor makes it pretty hard to keep them in the eye candy zone.

 

So to follow your thoughts here you want them to be objectified and be eye-candy in another way?

[Hazegurl]

Yes, but even that is empowering as it is a positive stereotype - not one that diminishes a man.

Empowering to whom?

 

Not all so called "Positive" stereotypes are good.

[o Ventus]

To be honest I have never really seriously come across the concept of men being the disposable sex. If anything men have always occupied positions of power and authority and still do.
It strikes me as a big case of whataboutery, which is never a good basis to start from.


But then I'm in the UK, so maybe things are perceived differently here.

You can go ahead and stop right there.

 

Men have been the ones to be drafted for military service and are almost universally the ones who are the faceless mook enemies in violent games.

[X Equestris]

Barriers and Shields are the primary protective measures used by the advanced races of Mass Effects time, I've mentioned this before in another thread or this one, the armor they wear for those who do wear armor isn't necessarily for protection against firearms, as the majority of them aren't protective at all against the types of firearms used in Mass Effect. Yes Barriers and Shields also protect against environmental hazards as was demonstrated on Haestrom while rescuing Tali. Therefore armor as we know it is generally regulated to things like monitoring your vitals, communication and computers, and identifying who you work for. I'm not saying this excuses Miranda or Jack, or Samara/Morinth from covering their exposed skin but should explain why suits with additional hardware are just as viable in come cases in their universe (Quarians are a good go to example of suits/uniforms that function to keep them alive while in unnatural environments).

Barriers and shields routinely fall apart under heavy fire. Armor is a back up means of protection for when they go down. That's much like how modern infantry body armor won't protect you from all forms of possible damage, but it will protect you from some situations that could kill or badly injure you otherwise. For example, Jack is going to have a bad day if she gets shot while her barriers are down.

Also, how do shields and barriers protect you from environmental hazards, least of all on Haestrom? Your shields rapidly collapse if you stand in the sun. And that's not the only sort of environmental hazard that you might come across. Extreme pressure and temperatures, acid rain, poisonous gasses, the list goes on. A dinky little breath mask isn't going to protect you from those, and neither are shields.

[Panda]

You can go ahead and stop right there.

 

Men have been the ones to be drafted for military service and are almost universally the ones who are the faceless mook enemies in violent games.

 

Traditional gender roles in play. I'd say that it's mostly from that men are seen as stronger than women. They can be in play in video games too. I see it as negative that females aren't faceless mook enemies in video games as much as men, although in some games they are quite equally them compared to men like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. But I guess everyone wins with putting more faceless female mook enemies in the games, I win since I see it as sth positive, that females are valued and considered capable enemies and men win cause they don't want to be faceless mooks compared to women.

[Han Shot First]

Barriers and shields routinely fall apart under heavy fire. Armor is a back up means of protection for when they go down. That's much like how modern infantry body armor won't protect you from all forms of possible damage, but it will protect you from some situations that could kill or badly injure you otherwise. For example, Jack is going to have a bad day if she gets shot while her barriers are down.

Also, how do shields and barriers protect you from environmental hazards, least of all on Haestrom? Your shields rapidly collapse if you stand in the sun. And that's not the only sort of environmental hazard that you might come across. Extreme pressure and temperatures, acid rain, poisonous gasses, the list goes on. A dinky little breath mask isn't going to protect you from those, and neither are shields.

 

Shields and barriers also won't protect against the concussive force of explosions. The lore describes barriers as functioning by using mass effect fields to basically slap away fast moving projectiles. That's going to be useless against concussion, unlike a helmet and a body armor.

 

It also raises the question of whether barriers would be vulnerable to slow moving projectiles, like shrapnel. Gameplay suggests it might, since barriers do nothing against physical damage from melee attacks. 

[Dunmer of Redoran]

Shields and barriers also won't protect against the concussive force of explosions. The lore describes barriers as functioning by using mass effect fields to basically slap away fast moving projectiles. That's going to be useless against concussion, unlike a helmet and a body armor.

 

It also raises the question of whether barriers would be vulnerable to slow moving projectiles, like shrapnel. Gameplay suggests it might, since barriers do nothing against physical damage from melee attacks. 

 

I think the overall surface area of the projectile has a lot to do with it, too. A lot of small projectiles can be absorbed; a large object (like a fist, or a knee, or a head) would bypass the kinetic barriers altogether.

[o Ventus]

Traditional gender roles in play. I'd say that it's mostly from that men are seen as stronger than women. They can be in play in video games too. I see it as negative that females aren't faceless mook enemies in video games as much as men, although in some games they are quite equally them compared to men like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. But I guess everyone wins with putting more faceless female mook enemies in the games, I win since I see it as sth positive, that females are valued and considered capable enemies and men win cause they don't want to be faceless mooks compared to women.

 

Yeah, men are seen as strong, which is why they are the disposable cannon fodder whose sole purpose is to be killed by the protagonist for money, loot, and XP. Because they are strong.

[Toasted Llama]

Traditional gender roles in play. I'd say that it's mostly from that men are seen as stronger than women. They can be in play in video games too. I see it as negative that females aren't faceless mook enemies in video games as much as men, although in some games they are quite equally them compared to men like Mass Effect and Dragon Age. But I guess everyone wins with putting more faceless female mook enemies in the games, I win since I see it as sth positive, that females are valued and considered capable enemies and men win cause they don't want to be faceless mooks compared to women.

 

While I agree that having faceless mooks of either gender is a win/win situation for both men and women, when a game does this, it still gets criticized, like GTA5, which had both male and female "mooks" (well.. civilians... people you could kill if you wanted to, basically) gets criticzed for "violence against women".

 

I believe it got pulled from the australian shelves (and new zealand??) only because you had the OPTIONAL ABILITY to kill female prostitutes. It was considered "wrong" because players were "encouraged" to kill prostitutes to get their money back. Well, it's equally as encouraging as shooting a random men walking around, because both actions result in a similar response: the ingame police department will (attempt to) arrest you.

[Panda]

Yeah, men are seen as strong, which is why they are the disposable cannon fodder whose sole purpose is to be killed by the protagonist for money, loot, and XP. Because they are strong.

 

Strong and capable as enemies. Also apparently easier to animate Especially if making alien etc. models, developers just have no idea how to make those I guess!

 

I'd love to see more female canon fodder in the games so you won't get sympathy from me on this.

[o Ventus]

Strong and capable as enemies. Also apparently easier to animate Especially if making alien etc. models, developers just have no idea how to make those I guess!

 

I'd love to see more female canon fodder in the games so you won't get sympathy from me on this.

 

Wow, you're really not even trying to defend this, are you?

 

"Strong and capable as enemies". Yeah, the level 1 bandits roaming outside town who couldn't even kill themselves if they tried sure are strong and capable. This is such a poor and weak excuse, I'm actually astounded. Then I remember who it is I'm talking to.